Supreme Court of India
M.P. SINGH, DY. SUPDT. OF POLICE C.B.I. & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1987 INSC 13
- Decided
- 16 January 1987
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
- Bench
- E S VENKATARAMIAH
Holding
The classification of CBI officers into deputationists and non‑deputationists for the purpose of paying different rates of special pay is unconstitutional as it fails the test of intelligible differentia and rational nexus, entitling non‑deputationists to the same special pay as deputationists.
Summary
The petitioners, 80 directly recruited CBI officers (non‑deputationists), challenged the Central Government's policy of paying lower special pay to them compared to officers on deputation from State police cadres. They argued that the differential rates violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because the officers performed identical duties in the Central Investigating Units. The Government contended that the higher special pay for deputationists was to attract talent and compensate for displacement, but the Court found that special pay was intended to reward the arduous nature of investigative work, which was common to both groups. Applying the test of permissible classification, the Court held that the distinction based on deputation status lacked intelligible differentia and a rational nexus to the objective of the pay scheme. Consequently, the Court directed the Government to grant the same special pay to non‑deputationists as to deputationists, with arrears payable, and allowed the writ petitions.
Issues considered
- Does the differential special pay for deputationists and non‑deputationists violate Article 14 of the Constitution?
- Is the classification of officers based on deputation status a permissible classification under Articles 14 and 16?
- Does the principle of equal pay for equal work extend to special pay in the CBI?
- Are the Government's reasons for the disparity (attracting talent and compensation for displacement) constitutionally valid?
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16
Subjects
equal payspecial paydiscriminationArticle 14Article 16classificationCBIdeputationcentral governmentwrit petitionArticle 32
Judgment
M.P. SINGH, DY. SUPDT. OF POLICE C.B.I. & ORS.
A v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
JANUARY 16, 1987
B [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.]
).
Equality clause-Equal pay for equal work-Whether the princi-
pie applies to the payment of Special f>ay as well-Direct Recruits
(Non-deputationists) in the C.B.l. paid lesser special pay from Sub-
Inspectors to Dy. Suptd. of Police cadre than the deputationists from
c
the State cadre-Whether discriminatory and offends Article 14 of the
Constitution. t
There are two classes of officials amongst those who are holding 'f
the posts of Sub-Inspectors, Inspectors and Deputy Superintendents of
Police in the Central Bureau of Investigation namely (i) who are directly
D recruited and (ii) those who have been drawn from various State cadres
on deputation basis. The deputationists are paid Deputation Allowance
as compensation for the temporary displacement from their parent
cadres occasioned by their deputation to the Central Bureau of Investi-
gation. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission
as accepted by the Central Government both the Direct recruits and
E "deputationists" in the rank of Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors were -*
paid equal rate of Special Pay from 1.7.73, while the Dy. Superinten-
dents were not paid anything. Both the direct recruits and the depu-
tationists posted in one of the Central Units were granted Special Pay
considering the special nature of duties of investigating officers, by its
letter No. 203/13/76-AUD-II dated 21.6.1976. But the Special Pay
F granted to the deputationists were more in all the three categories. '
Having failed to get the disparity in the payment of Special Pay set
aright _!!t the departmental level, the aggrieved direct recruits (non
l
'
deputationists) have approached the Supreme Court for justice through
their petitions under Article 32 ol' the Constitution.
G Allowing the petitions, the Court,
HELD: It is well settled by several decisions of the Supreme
Court that in order to pass the test of permissible classification of
persons belonging to the same class into groups for purposes of dilferen-
tial treatment two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, that the classifi-
H cation must be founded on an intelligible dilferentia which distinguishes
1014
M.P. SINGH v. U.0.1. 1015
persons who ate grouped together frmn others left out of the group and
t"at differentia must h11ve a rational relation to the object sought to he A
achieved by the law which brings ai-t discrimination between the two
groups. [1017G-H; 1018A]
The Special Pay that was being paid to all the officers in the cadre
of "uh-Inspectors. InslM'<'tors and Deputy Superintendents of Police in B
the Central Investigating Units of the Central Bureau of investigation
has nothing to do with any compensation for which the· deputatiouists
may he entitled either on the ground of their richer experience or on the
ground of their displacement from their parent departments in the
various States, but it relates only to the arduous nature of the duties that
is being performed by all of them irrespective of the fact whether they
·-r· belong to the category of the 'deputationists' or to the category .of
'non-deputationists'. That being the position, the classification of the
C
officers working in the said cadres into two groups, namely, deputa-
tionists and non-deputationists for paying different rates of Special Pay
does not pass the test of classification permissible under Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution of India since it does not hear any rational rela-
D
tion to the object of classification. [10220-F]
The Court directed the Central Government to pay the non-
deputationists who have been working in the cadres of Sub-Inspectors,
Inspectors and Deputy Superintendents of Police in the Central Invest.i-
gating Units of the Central Bureau of Investigation Special Pay at the
E
same rates at which the deputationlsts are beinl paid with effect from the
date from which the decision contained in the letter ofthe Government
of India, Cabinet Secretariat beaming No. 203/13/76-AVD.II dated
21.6.1976 came into force upto date and to pay hereafter Special Pay to
all the officers (deputationists and non-.depntationists) in the said cadres
at the same rates.) [1022G-H; 1023A-B]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil} Nos.
13097-13176 Of 1984
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
(j
M.S. Ganesh for the Petitioners.
V. Kanth, Ms. Halida Khatun, C.V. Subba Rao and N.S. Das
Bahl for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987) 1 S.C.R.
A VE!'IKATARAMIAH, J. The petioners in these petitions, 80 in
number. are employees of the Central Government working in the
Central Bureau of Investigation. Some of them are holding the posts of
Sub-Inspectors, some are Inspectors and the remaining are the Deputy
Superintendents of Police in the Central Investigating Units of the
Central Bureau of Investigation. There are two classes of officials
B amongst those who are holding the posts of Sub-Inspectors, Inpectors
and Deputy Superintendents of Police. The first class of those officials
to which the petitioners belong consists of those who have been
recruited directly to the Central Bureau of Investigation. They are
hereinafter referred to as 'non-deputationists'. The other class of offi-
cials in those cadres consists of those who have been drawn from
C various State cadres. They are hereinafter referred to as 'deputa-
tionists·.
In this case the dispute relates to the discrimination that has been
brought about by the Central Government regarding the Special Pay
payable to the two groups of officers, namely, 'deputationists' and
D 'non-deputationists'. While a Deputy Superintendent of Police who
belongs to the category of 'deputationists' is getting Rs.150 per month
by way of Special Pay, a Deputy Superintendent of Police who is a
non-deputationist gets Rs. 100 per month as Special Pay. Similarly
while an Inspector belonging to the former category gets Rs. 125 per
month as Special Pay, an Inspector belonging to the latter category
E gets Rs. 75 per month as Special Pay and while a Sub-Inspector belong-
ing to the former category gets Rs.100 per month by way of Special
Pay, a Sub-Inspector belonging to the latter category gets Rs.50 per
month. The petitioners, who are non-deputationists, claim that they
should also be paid the same Special Pay which the deputationists are
getting with effect from the date on which the deputationists com-
F menced to draw the Special Pay at higher rates. 1
The two groups of officers, referred to above are all working in
the 14 Branches of the Central Bure.au of Investigation which are
f
called Central Investigating Vnits. It is not disputed that the two sets
of officers, namely the 'non-deputationists' and the 'deputationists' in
G the ranks of Sub-Inspectors, Inspectors and Deputy Superintendents of
Police discharge the same functions, duties and responsibilities in the
various Central Investigating Units. They have to travel to different
places for purposes of investigation into the several cases entrusted to
them. The Special pay that is being paid to the deputationists is in'
addition to the Deputation Allowance paid to them which is not admissi-
H ble to the non-deputationists. The Deputation Allowance is paid to the
M.P. SINGH v. U.0.1. [VENXATARAMIAH,1J.) 1017
deputationists as compensation for the temporary displacement from
their parent cadres occasioned by their deputation to the Central A
Bureau of Investigation. At present a Deputy Superintendent of
Police who is on deputation gets Rs.150 per month as Deputation
Allowance, an Inspector who is on deputation gets Rs.125 per month
as Deputation Allowance and a Sub-Inspector who is on deputation
gets Rs.100 per month as Deputation Allowance. It is also alleged that B
in the non Central Investigating Units of the Central Bureau of
Investigation the rates of Special Pay paid to the officers working in
the three cadres of Sub-Inspectors, Inspectors and Deputy Superinten-
dents of Police are the same both in the case of deputationists and
non-deputationists, but in the case of Central Investigating Units,
however, to which the petitioners belong the deputationists in all the
three ranks get Special Pay at higher rates as stated above. It would C
also appear that between June, 1976 and August, 1979 the Deputy
Superintendents of Police belonging to the category of non-deputa-
tionists were totally denied the Special Pay of Rs.150 per month which
was being given to the Deputy Superintendents of Police who are on
deputation. It is contended by the petitioners that the denial• of the D
Special pay at the same rates at which.the deputationists are being paid
amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
In answer to the above claim of the petitioners it is stated on
behalf of the Central Government in the counter-affidavit filed by Shri
R.S. Nagpal, Under Secretary to the Government of India·, Ministry of E
Home Affairs (Department of Personnel and Administrative
Refortns) that because the State Governments had revised scales of
pay of their staff including the State Police from different dates
merging whole or substantial portion of the dearness allowance and
because the dearness allowance and the structure of pay scales differed
widely from one State to another, there could not be any comparison p
between the scales of pay of the deputationists and the scales of pay of
the non-deputationists which had been fixed on the recommendation
of the Third Pay Commission. It is further stated that the Special Pay
was being paid to the deputationists at a higher rate to attract officers
of high calibre from their parent departments and the arduous nature of
their duties. G
It is well-settled by several decisions of this Court that in order to
pass the test of permissible classification of persons belonging to the
same class into groups for purposes of differential treatment two
conditions must be fulfilled, namely, that the classification must be
founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons who H
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.
A are grouped together from others left out of the group and that that
differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be
achieved by the law which brings about discrimination between the
two groups. The Deputation Allowance which is paid to the depu-
tationists with which the petitioners have no quarrel compensates the
difficulties which the deputationists may encounter on account of their
B displacement from their parent departments. The Special Pay, how.-
ever, is not actually paid as compensation for such displacement. This
is quite evident from the recent proposal which was submitted to the
Fourth Pay Commission by the Government Of India. it reads thus:
"Considering special nature of duties of Investigating Offi-
c cers in Central Branches and the fact that they were to
remain on extensive tours spreading about 20 days a
month, the rate of special pay for deputationist officers
only was rai~ed by Rs. 50 p. m. for S.Is, Inspectors and Dy.
Ss.P. They get special pay at the following rates:
D Dy.S.P. Rs.150
Inspector Rs.125
Sub-Inspector Rs. 100
There has been a demand that departmental officers
posted in Central Branches should also be entitiled to the
same amount of enhanced special pay which has been sanc-
tioned to the deputationists. It is considered that this
demand is genuine and the Government had desired it
F should be projected before the Fourth Pay Commission."
It is clear from the foregoing proposal submitted to the Fourth
Pay Commission that the Special Pay was being paid at higher rates to
the deputationists not because of their displacement from the parent
departments but as compensation for the arduous nature of the duties
G performed by them as Investigating Officers in the Central Branches
which included extensive tours spreading over about 20 days a month
which they had to undertake. It is not in dispute that the nature of the )
duties performed by the deputationists as Investigating Officers is the
same as the nature of duties performed by the non-deputationists as
Investigating Officers. It is significant that the said proposal which was
H submitted perhaps during the pendency of this Writ Petition does not
M.P. SINGH v. U.0.1. IVENKATARAMIAH, J.) 1019
refer to the difference in the rates of pay and dearness allowance which
the deputationists were getting as members belonging to the Police A
departments of different States nor does it state that the Special Pay
was being paid for attracting talent from the State Services. The
petitioners have alleged that the non-deputationists holding the posts
of Sub-Inspectors, Inspectors and Deputy Superintendents of Police
are highly qualified persons and are equally talented and this allega-
B
tion is not properly traversed in the counter-affidavit.
It is seen that pursuant to the recommendation of the Third Pay
Commission as accepted by the Central Government both the non-
deputationists and the deputationists in the ranks of Sub-Inspectors
and Inspectors were being paid the same Special Pay with effect from
January 1, 1973. On that. occasion the Deputy Superintendents of c
Police of either category were not granted any Special pay. By its letter
No. 203/13n6-AVD-II dated 21.6,1976 the Government of India in-
timated the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation its decision that
the Police officers on deputation to the Central Bureau of Investiga-
tion as Deputy Superintendents of Police, Inspectors and Sub-Ins,
pectors and posted in one of the Central Units had been granted Spe- D
cial Pay at the following rates with effect from the date of issue of the
said order:
Dy.S.P. Rs.150 p.m.
Inspector Rs.125 p.m.
E
Sub-Inspector Rs. 100 p.m.
By the aforesaid decision dated· 21.6.1976 the Central Government
disturbed the existing parity of Special Pay between non-deputationists
and deputationists which it had accepted pursuant to the recommenda-
tion of the Third Pay Commission, as stated above, and commenced
F
the discrimination complained of in this case. The Government Order
dated 21.6.1976 did not give any reason as to why in the case of the
deputationists alone there was an increase in the rates of Special Pay,
but it is clear from its letter written on 6.7.1976 by Shri D. Sell,
Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation to the Superintendents
of Police of the Central Units that the Higher Special Pay had been
G
sanctioned in order to compensate to a certain extent the arduous
nature of the job which the Investigating Officers had ro perform. He
stated in the course of the letter thus:
"Recently ..... we have been able to get higher special
pay sanctioned for all the Investigating officers posted in H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [1987] l S.C.R.
A Central Units. This should compensate them to a certain
extent for the arduous nature of the job which they have to
perform in a Central Unit .... "
A reading of that letter does not, however, suggest that the
Director had noticed that the rates of Special Pay had been increased
B only in the case of deputationists and not in the case of non-depu-
tationists. By its letter dated 2.2. 1978 Shri P.C. Sharma, who was then
working as Sub-Inspector (now Inspector and one of the Petitioners
herein) submitted a representation to the Director requesting that he
might also be granted enhanced rate of Special Pay at par with the
deputationist Sub-Inspectors posted in Central Units with retrospec-
tive effect. He pointed out that he had been working in one of the
c Central Units and that he had been performing the same duties as any
of the deputationist officers in the Central Units. He further stated
that the job requirements in the Central Units did not make any dis-
tinction between a deputationist and a non-deputationist Sub-Inspec-
tor and that often it had been found that assigments of complicated
D nature had been entrusted to the non-deputationists. Similar represen-
tations were made by other Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors who are
petitioners before us. Alongwith his letter dated 8.2.1978 the
Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation forwarded
to the Central Government eight such representations for the grant of
Special Pay at the enhanced rates. On 22.2.1978 the Ministry of Home
E Affairs intimated the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of
Investigation that the question of grant of Special Pay to the non-
deputationist Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of the Central Bureau of
Investigation working in the Central Branches at the same rates at
which it was then admissible to the deputationist officers of the cor- ·
i
responding ranks had already been taken up with the Department of
F Personnel & Administrative Reforms and that the Government deci-
sion in that regard was still awaited. On 27 .8. 1979 the Government of
India sanctioned with immediate effect a Special Pay of Rs. JOO per
month to the non-deputationist Deputy Superintendents of Police in
the Central Bureau of Investigation.The question of maintaining
parity in the inatter of payment of Special Pay between the depu-
G tationists and the non-deputationists was taken up for consideration at
the meeting of the CBI Staff Council presided over by the then Home
Minister Shri Zail Singh. The Home Minister assured the Staff Council
)
that the request of the non-deputationists would be considered
sympathetically by ·the Government and an early decision would be
taken. The said question was again raised at the meeting of the Staff
H Council on the 30th_ October, 1982 and at the meeting held on
M.P. SINGH v. U.0.1. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.) 1021
17. l. 1983. On l l:T.1983 the Home Department again wrote to the
Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation that the A
question of granting of Special Pay to the non-deputationists in the
Central Bureau of Investigation at the rates applicable to deputa-
tionists was still under consideration with the Government and that its
decision would be communicated as and when it was taken. Again on
26.3. 198.+ the Home Department addressed a letter to. all the
8
Superintendents of Police on the subject of Special Pay. It reads thus:
No. A.-1lO19/6/80-IWSU
Governnient of India
Ministry of Home Affairs
Department of Personnel & A. R.
C.B.I., Kotah House Hutments,
New Delhi
c
Dated 26.3.8.+
To
The Superintendents of Police,
Central Bureau of Investigation, D
All Central Uni.ts located in Delhi
Subject: Grant of special pay of the enhanced rates to the
non-deputationist Dy. SS. P., Inspectors and
S.Is. working in the Central Branches.
* * * * * E
Sir,
I have the honour to say that of late a number of
representations have been received from departmental of-
ficers of the level of S.ls. to Dy. Ss. P. working in the
Central Units, requesting for special pay at par wi.th the F
deputationist officers. I am to inform you that a proposal
has already been sent to the Government requesting them
to sanction higher rates of special pay for non-deputa-
tionists Dy. Ss.P .• Inspectors and S.Is. while working in the
Central Units of C.B .I. The decision when taken will be
communicated to all concerned. You are requested to G
inform all departmental officers suitably in the mauer.
Yours faithfully.
Sd
(R.S. Nagpal)
Administrative Officer(E) H
c.s.1.··
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [!987] I S.C.R.
It is thus seen that at no point of tin1e there was any suggestion
A
by the Governl)lent of India that the non-dcputationists were not
entitled to the same treatment with the deputationists as regards
Special Pay. On the other hand. the letter addressed to the Fourth Pay
Commission by the Home Department which is referred to above
clearly stated that: "There has been demand that departmental offi-
R cers posted in Central Branches should also be entitled to the same
amount of enhanced special pay which has been sanctioned to depu-
tationists. It is considered that this demand is genuine and the Govern-
ment had desired it should be projected before the Fourth Pay Com-
mission". There appears to be thus no rational explanation for the
Government taking up a contrary stand in the counter-affidavit filed
before us while it had accepted that the demand made by the petition-
c ers. who were the departmental officers posted in the Central Units.
was a genuine one.
From the foregoing discussion it emerges that the Special pay
that was being paid to all the officers in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors.
D Inspectors and Deputy Superintendents of Police in thle Central
Investigating Units of the Central Bureau of Investigation has nothing
to do with any compensation for which the deputationists may be
entitled either on the ground of their richer experience or on the
ground of their displacement from their parent departments in the
various States. but it relates only to the arduous nature o_f the duties
that is being performed by all of them irrespective of the fact whether
they belong to the category of the 'deputationosts' or to the category of
the 'non-deputationists'. That being the position. the classification of
the officers working in the said cadres into two groups. namely.
deputationists and non-deputationists for paying different rates of
Special Pay does not pass the test of classification pe. missible under
F Articles 1-l and 16 of the Constituion of India since it does not bear any
rational relation to the object of classification.
In these circumstances,, it is difficult to accept the stand of the
Central Government justifying the discriminatory treatment meted
out to the non-deputationists as regards payment of Special Pay.
G
We, therefore, direct the Central Government to pay the non-
deputationists who have been working in the cadres of Sub-Inspectors, }·
Inspectors and Deputy Superintendents of Police in the Central
Investigating Units of the Central Bureau of Investigation Special Pay
at the same rates at which the deputationists are being paid with effect
H from the date from which the decision contained in the letter of the
M.P. SINGH v. U.0.1. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.) 1()43
Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat bearing No. 203/13n6" A.
A VD.II dated 21.6.1976 came into force upto date and to pay ltere"
after Special Pay to all the officers (deputationists and non,gep\!•
tationists) in the said cadres at the s.ame rates. The arrears of Special
Pay payable upto date shall be paid within four ntonths from t!!d!ly,
The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed. No costs,
S.R.
+
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "equal pay"Sign in to search